Dyson: We have created this expanding computational universe, and it’s open to the evolution of all kinds of things. It’s cycling faster and faster, and it’s way, way, way more than doubling in scale every year. Even with the help of Google and YouTube and Facebook, we can’t consume it all. And we aren’t really aware what this vast space is filling up with. From the human perspective, computers are idle 99 percent of the time, just waiting for the next instruction. While they’re waiting for us to come up with instructions, more and more computation is happening without us, as computers write instructions for each other. And as Turing showed mathematically, this space can’t be supervised. As the digital universe expands, so does this wild, undomesticated side.
Wired: If this is true, what’s the takeaway?
Dyson: Hire biologists! It doesn’t make sense for a high tech company to have 3,000 software engineers but no biologists.Wired: One last question: What do you mean by “Turing’s cathedral”?
Dyson: In Turing’s 1950 paper, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” he argued that when we build intelligent machines, we will not be creating souls but building the mansions for the souls that God creates. When I first visited Google, right about the time it went public, I walked around and saw what they were doing and realized they were building a very large distributed AI, much as Turing had predicted. And I thought, my God, this is not Turing’s mansion—this is Turing’s cathedral. Cathedrals were built over hundreds of years by thousands of nameless people, each one carving a little corner somewhere or adding one little stone. That’s how I feel about the whole computational universe. Everybody is putting these small stones in place, incrementally creating this cathedral that no one could even imagine doing on their own.via Q&A: Hacker Historian George Dyson Sits Down With Wireds Kevin Kelly | Wired Magazine | Wired.com.
Category Archives: notes
Die Popularität von News auf Twitter ist vorhersagbar
News articles are extremely time sensitive by nature. There is also intense competition among news items to propagate as widely as possible. Hence, the task of predicting the popularity of news items on the social web is both interesting and challenging. Prior research has dealt with predicting eventual online popularity based on early popularity. It is most desirable, however, to predict the popularity of items prior to their release, fostering the possibility of appropriate decision making to modify an article and the manner of its publication. In this paper, we construct a multi-dimensional feature space derived from properties of an article and evaluate the efficacy of these features to serve as predictors of online popularity. We examine both regression and classification algorithms and demonstrate that despite randomness in human behavior, it is possible to predict ranges of popularity on twitter with an overall 84% accuracy. Our study also serves to illustrate the differences between traditionally prominent sources and those immensely popular on the social web.
via The Pulse of News in Social Media: Forecasting Popularity.
Vier Kriterien wurden in der wissenschaftlichen Studie betrachtet:
- the news source that generates and posts the article
- the category of news
- the subjectivity of the language
- the people and things named in the article
(hier noch ein Link zum pdf auf diesem Server, falls das Original offline gehen sollte)
Der gläserne Surfer
Advertisements, discounts, information, and entertainment are increasingly customized by a largely invisible industry on the basis of a vast amount of information that we likely don’t realize it is collecting as a result of social profiles and reputations it assigns us and never discloses, and about which we are likely ignorant.
Kein neues Thema, das The Atlantic aufgreift, besonders nicht für Medienschaffende. Trotzdem: Wer sich fürs Thema digital profiling interessiert (und eigentlich sollte das jeder, der auf diese Seite stösst), findet hier einen guten Einstieg.
Kommentar-Trouvaille auf dem Medienspiegel
Auch wenn viele Kommentarschlachten auf medienspiegel.ch schnell ins Sinnlose abgleiten, finden sich dort immer wieder wunderbar lesenswerte Perlen. Eine kürzlich abgegebene Meinung zu einem Artikel von Kurt Imhof bringt den Medienzirkus mit all seinen unterschiedlichen Akteuren sehr schön auf den Punkt:
Der “Superexperte” Imhof, wie Sie, Herr Kant, den Soziologen und Publizistikwissenschafter vom Dienst nennen, gehört zum Medienzirkus. Sie würden ganz schön ins Kissen heulen und schnuddern, gäbe es ihn nicht. Das vorweg. Dann: Ich habe schon dümmere Kreationen gelesen, als eben: Empörungsbewirtschaftung. Eingängig: ja. Als Phrase geeignet: von mir aus. Aber, Herr Kant, das war der Kategorische Imperativ auch, wenn Sie mir eine kleine Dümpelei erlauben. Der angemahnte Begriff könnte ja durchaus dazu führen, über die eigene Empörungsbewirtschaftungsbereitschaft zu reflektieren, über die eigene Lust, “traurig und wütend” zu sein und die Gefühle, über die man heute ja zum Glück nicht mehr schweigen muss (Lass es ‘raus, Mann!) in normiertem, mit Fremdwörtern und analytischem Zauber geschmücktem Betroffenheits-Geschwafel mit anderen zu multiplizieren – nicht immer (oder: nie) im Dienste der Klärung und Einordnung, sondern eher als Zusammengehörigkeitsgefühlsbewirtschaftung. Wenn die Medienleute zusammen in die Kissen heulen und schnuddern, weil Herr Imhof wieder einmal komplett daneben war, entsteht auch so ein wunderbarer Moment des Einander-Zunickens über alle Gräben und Besitzverhältnisse. Sitzen wir doch alle im gleichen Boot, gell? Die von der Uni müssen gar nicht meinen. Die Praktiker, das sind wir. Das, was wir verschlafen haben, verludern liessen oder nicht können, wollen wir ganz alleine aufdecken und bewirtschaften, im Fall.//Wo bleibt eigentlich die Käslischachtel-Medaille für den Superexperten?//Sie schreiben weiter, die Journalisten wühlen im Schlamm. Das mag sein. Aber wenn Sie meinen, Journalisten wühlen nur im Schlamm, um “Dinge offenzulegen, die Politiker, Manager und Prominente gerne zugedeckt hielten”, ist das nur die eine Seite der Käslischachtelmedaille, Herr Kant. Journalisten wühlen zuweilen im Schlamm und werfen Dreck und wirbeln Staub auf, weil sie Empörung generieren, bewirtschaften und die reale Situation massiv verschlimmern, sie auf die Streckbank legen, aufbauschen, allenfalls verzerren oder anreichern, einen “Skandal” künstlich am Leben erhalten, um im Gespräch zu bleiben, aufzufallen, sich anzubiedern, zu profilieren, gelesen zu werden.//Und: Läubli ist jenseits.
The Growth of the Internet and the Happy Recession
Most popular web-based businesses are deflationary. They substitute expensive forms of content consumption for cheap ones, they make it logistically easier to deliver discounts to people who will respond to them, and they create numerous financially cheap forms of social status. As more activity moves on to the web, the main effect on the economy will be broadly lower prices and less need for employment.
Das Magazin hat einen Blog
Und verwendet dabei 3 Farben und O Werbebanner. Luxus pur.
The Weasel, Twelve Monkeys And The Shrub
David Foster Wallace war im Jahr 2000 mit John McCains Wahlkampftross unterwegs und hat das Erlebte in einer epischen Reportage für den Rolling Stone festgehalten. Wenn sich jetzt Ron Paul, Mitt Romney und co. durch die US of A kämpfen, dürfte es hinter den Kulissen ähnlich absurd zu und her gehen. Ein Jammer, dass der Autor nicht mehr unter uns weilt, um die aktuellen Geschehnisse mit seinen brutal wahren Worten zu begleiten.
Auszug 1:
It’s hard to get good answers to why Young Voters are so uninterested in politics. This is probably because it’s next to impossible to get someone to think hard about why he’s not interested in something. The boredom itself preempts inquiry; the fact of the feeling’s enough. Surely one reason, though, is that politics is not cool. Or say rather that cool, interesting, alive people do not seem to be the ones who are drawn to the political process. Think back to the sort of kids in high school who were into running for student office: dweeby, overgroomed, obsequious to authority, ambitious in a sad way. Eager to play the Game. The kind of kids other kids would want to beat up if it didn’t seem so pointless and dull. And now consider some of 2000’s adult versions of these very same kids: Al Gore, best described by CNN sound tech Mark A. as “amazingly lifelike”; Steve Forbes, with his wet forehead and loony giggle; G. W. Bush’s patrician smirk and mangled cant; even Clinton himself, with his big red fake-friendly face and “I feel your pain.” Men who aren’t enough like human beings even to hate—what one feels when they loom into view is just an overwhelming lack of interest, the sort of deep disengagement that is often a defense against pain. Against sadness. In fact, the likeliest reason why so many of us care so little about politics is that modern politicians make us sad, hurt us deep down in ways that are hard even to name, much less talk about. It’s way easier to roll your eyes and not give a shit. You probably don’t want to hear about all this, even.
Auszug 2:
Because we’ve been lied to and lied to, and it hurts to be lied to. It’s ultimately just about that complicated: it hurts. We learn this at like age four—it’s grownups’ first explanation to us of why it’s bad to lie (“How would you like it if … ?”). And we keep learning for years, from hard experience, that getting lied to sucks—that it diminishes you, denies you respect for yourself, for the liar, for the world. Especially if the lies are chronic, systemic, if experience seems to teach that everything you’re supposed to believe in’s really just a game based on lies. Young Voters have been taught well and thoroughly. You may not personally remember Vietnam or Watergate, but it’s a good bet you remember “No new taxes” and “Out of the loop” and “No direct knowledge of any impropriety at this time” and “Did not inhale” and “Did not have sex with that Ms. Lewinsky” and etc. etc. It’s painful to believe that the would-be “public servants” you’re forced to choose between are all phonies whose only real concern is their own care and feeding and who will lie so outrageously and with such a straight face that you know they’ve just got to believe you’re an idiot.
Der ganze Text: The Weasel, Twelve Monkeys And The Shrub.
2011: The Year in Photos
Bei diesen Bildern wird mir bewusst: Es war ein beinahe schon überwältigend ereignisreiches Jahr.
2011: The Year in Photos, Part 1 of 3
2011: The Year in Photos, Part 2 of 3
2011: The Year in Photos, Part 3 of 3

